Delhi High Court

29,726 judgments

Year:

Sukhbir Singh v. State NCT of Delhi

08 Aug 2025 · Dr. Swarana Kanta Sharma · 2025:DHC:6658
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the extension of investigation period under MCOCA and dismissed the petitioner’s default bail plea, holding that procedural irregularities in the appointment of the Special Public Prosecutor did not vitiate the extension order absent prejudice.

criminal petition_dismissed Significant MCOCA default bail Special Public Prosecutor extension of investigation

Ravinder Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi)

08 Aug 2025 · Ravinder Dudeja · 2025:DHC:6669

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Section 25 of the Arms Act against a petitioner who inadvertently carried live cartridges without conscious possession, emphasizing the necessity of knowledge and intention for criminal liability.

criminal petition_allowed Significant conscious possession Section 25 Arms Act quashing of FIR inadvertent possession

Azam v. State (NCT of Delhi)

08 Aug 2025 · Manoj Kumar Ohri · 2025:DHC:6670
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction under Section 397 IPC, holding that a knife is inherently a deadly weapon and mere brandishing suffices to attract the provision even without recovery of the weapon.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant Section 397 IPC deadly weapon knife robbery

Shailender Chauhan v. The State Govt of NCT of Delhi and Anr

08 Aug 2025 · Girish Kathpalia · 2025:DHC:6648

The Delhi High Court quashed the FIR and criminal proceedings under Sections 498A, 406, and 34 IPC following amicable settlement and divorce between the parties, with the complainant withdrawing prosecution.

criminal petition_allowed quashing of FIR Section 498A IPC Section 406 IPC Section 34 IPC

Gulam Dustgeer Ansari v. State (NCT of Delhi)

08 Aug 2025 · Girish Kathpalia · 2025:DHC:6627

The Delhi High Court granted anticipatory bail in a cheating and criminal breach of trust case arising from a commercial dispute, emphasizing the necessity of dishonest intention and balancing liberty with investigation needs.

criminal appeal_allowed anticipatory bail Section 420 IPC cheating dishonest intention

Abhishek Khatri alias Jagtar v. The State of NCT of Delhi

08 Aug 2025 · Girish Kathpalia · 2025:DHC:6614

The Delhi High Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner on the ground of parity with co-accused, citing incomplete medical evidence and unsatisfactory investigation.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant anticipatory bail parity medical evidence investigation

Sonu @ Jeetu v. State (NCT of Delhi)

08 Aug 2025 · Girish Kathpalia · 2025:DHC:6661

The Delhi High Court allowed the petitioner’s plea for furlough despite prior parole violation and jail warnings, emphasizing reformation and proper safeguards.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant furlough parole Section 302 IPC prisoner reformation

Ronak v. State NCT of Delhi

08 Aug 2025 · Girish Kathpalia · 2025:DHC:6619

The Delhi High Court granted regular bail to the accused in an armed robbery case where the only evidence was recovery of his sandal and identification was uncertain due to masked assailants.

criminal appeal_allowed bail armed robbery identification recovery of sandal

Manoj @ Pahelwanji v. State

08 Aug 2025 · Girish Kathpalia · 2025:DHC:6628

The Delhi High Court granted bail to the petitioner on parity with co-accused who was earlier granted bail by the Supreme Court, considering the period of incarceration and facts.

criminal appeal_allowed bail parity incarceration period co-accused

Divesh v. State of NCT of Delhi

08 Aug 2025 · Girish Kathpalia · 2025:DHC:6626

Delhi High Court granted regular bail to accused in dacoity case due to absence of direct CCTV evidence and non-supportive complainant testimony, applying parity with co-accused.

criminal appeal_allowed bail dacoity CCTV evidence parity in bail

Dheeraj Chaudhary & Anr v. The State (Govt. of NCT Delhi) & Anr

08 Aug 2025 · Ravinder Dudeja · 2025:DHC:6654

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR and criminal proceedings based on a voluntary amicable settlement between the parties, applying the principle that continuation of proceedings despite settlement may amount to abuse of process.

criminal petition_allowed Significant quashing of FIR amicable settlement Article 226 Section 528 BNS

Danish Ansari v. State (NCT of Delhi)

08 Aug 2025 · Ravinder Dudeja · 2025:DHC:6622

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR and all proceedings under Section 528 BNS based on an amicable settlement and no objection from the victim, applying the principle that continuation of criminal proceedings would be an abuse of process.

criminal petition_allowed Significant quashing of FIR amicable settlement Section 528 BNS abuse of process of law

Syed Ahmad Shakeel v. National Investigation Agency

08 Aug 2025 · Navin Chawla; Shalinder Kaur · 2025:DHC:6618-DB
Cites 3 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court allowed bail to appellants accused of terror funding under UAPA, holding that prolonged detention without trial conclusion violates Article 21 and that bail under Section 43D(5) requires a prima facie case based on broad probabilities.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant UAPA Section 43D(5) bail under UAPA terror funding Hizb-ul-Mujahideen

Inspector Aman Goyat v. Union of India and Ors

08 Aug 2025 · C. Hari Shankar; Om Prakash Shukla · 2025:DHC:6652-DB

The Delhi High Court allowed a petitioner who missed a physical examination due to unavoidable reasons to appear on a later date as a special case without creating precedent.

administrative petition_allowed physical examination unavoidable absence discretionary relief administrative fairness

AXIS FINANCE LIMITED v. Mr. AGAM ISHWAR TRIMBAK

08 Aug 2025 · Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav · 2025:DHC:7477
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that at the stage of appointing an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act, the Court’s inquiry is limited to a prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement and allegations of fraud or forgery must be decided by the arbitral tribunal.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Section 11(6) Arbitration and Conciliation Act arbitration agreement prima facie test fraud and forgery in arbitration

Nitin Tanwar v. Sumit

08 Aug 2025 · Tara Vitasta Ganju · 2025:DHC:7362

The High Court upheld the Trial Court's grant of unconditional leave to defend in a loan recovery suit where the defendant raised plausible triable issues supported by collateral security, and the plaintiff was found to have concealed material facts.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant leave to defend Order XXXVII CPC collateral security unconditional leave

Ramesh Singh v. The Regional Labour Commissioner Central & Anr.

08 Aug 2025 · Tara Vitasta Ganju · 2025:DHC:7196

The Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging non-implementation of a labour award after the petitioner’s death due to non-impleading legal representatives and prior implementation of the award.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant writ petition legal representatives substitution Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

Praveen Juneja v. Hari Niwas & Ors

08 Aug 2025 · Tara Vitasta Ganju · 2025:DHC:7195

The Delhi High Court held that a revision petition under Section 115 CPC is not maintainable against an order rejecting an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC and converted the pending revision into a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for appropriate adjudication.

civil other Significant Order IX Rule 13 CPC Section 115 CPC Article 227 Constitution of India ex parte decree

Sonu Chauhan & Anr. v. State of NCT of Delhi

08 Aug 2025 · Manoj Kumar Ohri · 2025:DHC:7053
Cites 3 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld convictions under Section 308 IPC but granted probation to appellants due to absence of mandatory minimum sentence and their good conduct, emphasizing judicial discretion under the Probation of Offenders Act.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 308 IPC Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 benefit of probation mandatory minimum sentence

Rajasthan Aushdalaya Private Limited v. Himalaya Global Holdings Ltd

08 Aug 2025 · C. Hari Shankar; Ajay Digpaul · 2025:DHC:6991-DB

The Delhi High Court allowed a review petition to correct typographical errors in its earlier judgment concerning trademark use and sales figures without altering the substantive decision.

civil petition_allowed Procedural review petition typographical errors trademark Liv-333